Allowed

Prime Properties Pvt. Limited v. ---------------------------------------

Bombay HC4 Apr 2008CP/205/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court sanctioned a Scheme of Arrangement between Prime Properties Private Limited and Ardour Real Estate Private Limited for the demerger of an undertaking under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, finding it fair and non-prejudicial to stakeholders.

What did the court decide?

Company Petition No.205 of 2008 and 206 of 2008 made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (c).

Prime Properties Pvt. Limited Vs --------------------------------------- — Bombay HC (2008) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

COMPANY PETITION NO.205 OF 2008

¶5

CONNECTED WITH

¶6

COMPANY APPLICATION NO.251 OF 2008

¶7

PRIME PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED …… Petitioner / Demerged Company

¶8

AND

¶9

COMPANY PETITION NO.206 OF 2008 CONNECTED WITH

¶10

COMPANY APPLICATION NO.252 OF 2008

¶11

Ardour Real Estate Private Limited

¶12

… .. Petitioner / Resulting

¶13

Company

¶14

In the matter of the Companies Act 1 of 1956;

¶15

AND

¶16

In the matter of Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956;

¶17

AND

¶18

In the matter of Scheme of Arrangement between Prime Properties Private Limited and Ardour Real Estate Private Limited and their respective shareholders

¶19

Mr. Rajesh Shah i/b Rajesh Shah & Co. for the Petitioners.

¶20

Mr. C. J. Joy i/b Mr. S.K. Mohapatra for Regional Director in C.P. No.205 and 206 of 2008.

CORAM: A. S. OKA, J.

DATE: April 4, 2008

PC:

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶25

The sanction of the Court is sought under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 to a Scheme of Arrangement between Prime Properties Private Limited, the Demerged Company and Ardour Real Estate Private Limited, the Resulting Company and their respective shareholders for the demerger of

¶26

¶27

‘the Undertaking’ of the Demerged Company into the Resulting Company.

¶28

Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner have stated that they have complied with all requirements as per directions of this Court and they have filed necessary affidavits of compliance in the Court. Moreover, the Petitioner Companies also undertakes to comply with all statutory requirements if any, as required under the Companies Act, 1956 and the Rules made thereunder.

¶29

The Regional Director has filed Affidavit stating therein that the scheme is not prejudicial to the interest of creditors, shareholders and public. So far paragraph 6 of his Affidavit is concerned the counsel appearing for the Petitioner undertakes to comply with the requirement of the provisions of section 94/97 read with Schedule X of the Companies Act, 1956 in respect of filing of necessary forms with the Registrar of Companies after payment of necessary stamp duty and ROC fees if any applicable. The said undertaking is accepted.

¶30

Upon perusal of the entire material placed on records, the scheme appears to be fair and reasonable and is not violative of any provisions of law and is not contrary to any public policy. None of the parties concerned has come forward to oppose the scheme. Moreover, the Regional Director has stated that the scheme as proposed is not prejudicial to the interests of share holders and creditors and the public.

¶31

There is no objection to the Scheme save and except as stated in paragraph 4 herein and since all the requisite statutory compliances have been fulfilled, Company Petition No.205 of 2008 and 206 of 2008 filed by the Petitioner Companies are made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (c).

¶32

The Petitioner Companies to lodge a copy of this order and the scheme with the concerned Superintendent of Stamps for the purpose of adjudication of stamp duty payable, if any, on the same within 30 days of obtaining the certified copy and/or an authenticated copy of the order.

¶33

The Petitioner Companies to pay cost of Rs.5000/- each to the

¶34

¶35

Regional Director. Costs to be paid within four weeks from the date of the order.

¶36

Filing and issuance of the drawn up order is dispensed with.

¶37

All authorities concerned to act on a copy of this order along with the copy of the Scheme duly authenticated by the Company Registrar.

¶38

(A. S. Oka, J.)

Prime Properties Pvt. Limited v. ---------------------------------------

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prime Properties Pvt. Limited v. ---------------------------------------

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Maharashtra Vs Shri Ragho Janu Chimane and Others

Everest Advertising Pvt. Ltd. Vs Media Entertainment Co.P.Ltd.

M/S Set Telecom Limited Vs the O. L. of Set Telecom Ltd.(Provisional Liquidator)

Mrs. Mini Munashwarnath Kaul Vs Veena Kaul

The State of Maharashtra and Anr. Vs Shrimant Govindrao Narayanrao Ghorpade.

Shrimant Govindrao Narayanrao Ghorpade. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.